Scribd
Upload
25 views3 pages

MACT Case Note Brief

The Supreme Court case Valli & Ors vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. involves an appeal against a High Court decision that set aside a MACT compensation award of Rs. 12.4 lakhs for the death of Thiruvenkadam in a road accident involving a Tata Ace vehicle. The High Court found insufficient evidence linking the vehicle to the accident, citing contradictions in eyewitness testimony. The appellants argue that the High Court misapplied the standard of proof and ignored key evidence supporting their claim.

Uploaded by

Shivam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
25 views3 pages

MACT Case Note Brief

The Supreme Court case Valli & Ors vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. involves an appeal against a High Court decision that set aside a MACT compensation award of Rs. 12.4 lakhs for the death of Thiruvenkadam in a road accident involving a Tata Ace vehicle. The High Court found insufficient evidence linking the vehicle to the accident, citing contradictions in eyewitness testimony. The appellants argue that the High Court misapplied the standard of proof and ignored key evidence supporting their claim.

Uploaded by

Shivam
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

MACT Case Note - Item 16

Item 16 [D- 32445/2024]

Valli & Ors vs. Oriental Insurance Co. Ltd. & Anr

SLP (C) No. 19770/2024

SUPREME COURT RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

- 02.09.2024: Notice issued, returnable in six weeks

- 10.12.2024: Service complete on both respondents; listing awaited

This SLP arises from MACT Appeal where HC vide order dt. 27.11.2023 set aside the
compensation award of Rs. 12,40,000 passed by the MACT, Gingee.

Subject : The MACT had held the Resp./insurer liable for the death of Thiruvenkadam, who
died in a road accident allegedly caused by a rashly driven Tata Ace vehicle.

IMPUGNED ORDER : HC, relying on discrepancies in P.W.2 testimony, found insufficient


evidence of involvement of the said vehicle, and allowed the insurance company appeal to
ser aisde award.

Accident date

06.09.2015

INCIDENT

Thiruvenkadam (25 Yrs) was hit by a Tata Ace vehicle and died.

DEPENDANTS

Parents + sister
Claim Amount

Rs. 30 lakhs.

MACT award

Rs. 12.4 lakhs.

IMPUGNED ORDER

HC, citing inconsistencies in the key eyewitness overturned the award and set aside the
findings of the MACT

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

ON 06.09.2015 the [Link] (25 Yrs), was riding two-wheeler when the
offending Vehicle i.e. Tata Ace TN-32-Q-1917 which was being driven Rash and negligent
driving by Tata Ace driver hit him leading to his instant death

An FIR: No. 257/2015 U/s 279 & 304A IPC, Avalurpet PS

- Claim filed: Rs.30,00,000 by parents and sister before MACT, Gingee

- MACT Award: Rs.12,40,000

- HC Order: Award set aside due to lack of credible proof of vehicle involvement

IMPUGNED ORDER (High Court)

The High Court set aside the MACT Award:

- P.W.2 and his cross-examination contradicted his chief, admitting the deceased hit a tree
while speeding.

- FIR registered by the deceasedÕs brother didnÕt mention the goods carrierâ and its
involvement.

- No direct eyewitness confirmed collision with the Tata Ace vehicle.

Hence, the High Court held that the goods carrier was not proved to be involved.

GROUNDS OF APPEAL:
1. High Court failed to appreciate the standard of proof in MACT cases – preponderance of
probabilities.

2. Ignored settled law in Sunita v. Rajasthan SRTC (2020) 13 SCC 486.

3. Over-relied on contradictions in P.W.2’s testimony, disregarding police charge sheet.

4. Ignored the final report holding the Tata Ace driver responsible.

5. Driver of offending vehicle was never examined by insurer.

6. Ignored that FIR was signed under duress; claimants sought re-investigation.

7. Judgment undermines the beneficial nature of MV Act and claimants’ rights.

----------------------------------------------------

You might also like